Gates and Bloomberg: praiseworthy, but it raises questions…

First of all, I want to say that I personally appreciate the principle behind what these two are doing to curb smoking. A true libertarian might argue that a campaign like this on what is essentially a lifestyle choice is oppressive, and cigarette smokers might just think that these two guys being up on their high horse telling them what they shouldn’t do is as annoying as 8th grade D.A.R.E. class, but I’m not either of those, so I say kudos. Cigarette smoking is addictive and unhealthy and at the very least someone should make sure that people are well-informed about that worldwide. Nonetheless, I think this raises some interesting questions.

I’ll start with Bloomberg. Yes, he’s a billionaire, but he is also the current mayor of New York and an oft-discussed potential presidential candidate. Is it right for him to publicly use his money in a way that could influence voters–even if it is for charity? Let’s imagine that instead of funding an anti-smoking campaign he purchased lunch for a number of poor voters in Ohio and Florida, would that be alright? How different are these two? Referring back to avschwarm’s post on campaign finance, is this also an unfair political use of money?

Alright, on to Gates. Its hard to argue that what he has been doing with his money isn’t a good thing, and I don’t intend to do so. However, I think there are some broader questions about him that deserve some discussion: is it a socially beneficial outcome for someone to be able to accumulate such wealth (through arguably monopolistic behavior) so that they can then decide how to spend that money trying to fix the social problems of an unequal society? Rockefeller and Carnegie were both quite philanthropic with their money and society benefitted tremendously, but would we have been better off had they not become rich through monopolistic means? Does Gates have an obligation to give money away through his foundation? On a personal level, what obligation do we all have to be public servants-billionaires or not?

Finally, what does it say about society that we tacitly depend on the whims of billionaires to address some of our most pressing global problems?

Alright, so the last question is certainly heavy-handed, but nonetheless important. They are all tough questions, but I do not think we should shy away from them.

Obama brings campaign to Western Wall

Is that really an Obama campaign banner in front of the Western Wall? (And it’s in Hebrew?)

Before Obama arrived at the Western Wall today in Jerusalem

Consider that just earlier today, in a column at The Huffington Post, Obama supporter and Florida Democrat Robert Wexler called McCain’s criticism of Obama’s comments at Yad Vashem “shameful” and “unconscionable”. I’d like to agree with Wexler that it’s inappropriate to use “Senator Obama’s somber visit to Israel’s Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem as a backdrop to score cheap political points”, but it’s difficult to do so when Obama uses a separate visit to Judaism’s holiest site the Western Wall as a campaign photo op.

Politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge. It certainly doesn’t belong at Yad Vashem or the Western Wall. Apparently the Obama and McCain campaigns just don’t care.

UPDATE 7/24:

It’s been reported that the Obama banners were distributed by the campaign itself. And Jerusalem Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld says this is not typical practice for political visits to the Western Wall.

If Barack Obama were President…

We’d get along with everyone, or so has been the storyline of his recent tour of the Middle East and Western Europe. At the halfway point of his trip, Obama’s met with literally everyone: Hamid Karzai, Nouri al-Maliki, Jalal Talabani, King Abdullah, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Mahmoud Abbas, Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert, plus several governors, mayors, and other dignitaries. His reception has been overwhelming friendly, complete with smiling photos ops, glowing praise, and fawning media coverage.

Obama with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani earlier this week.

And that doesn’t even include the Western European portion of the trip, where Obama is expected to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The New York Times reports the Germans are expecting the crowd at Obama’s public Berlin address to be as high as ONE MILLION (!). What, one million protesters (like when Bush visits)? No — more likely one million adoring fans, German no less.

Obama’s media team has been careful to remind reporters that there’s only one president, that this trip is not a policy-making trip, but come on, what kind of US senator gets one million Germans to turn out for a glorified campaign speech? Maybe one who’s getting a little ahead of himself? Does Obama mean to suggest that as President he’d enjoy this kind of international support?

Or maybe we’re all to blame — perhaps we’ve bought in so easily to Obama’s charm that it’s blinded us to the fact that he’s a politician who does stupid things domestically (supporting the farm bill, destroying campaign finance) and is likely to do them abroad given the chance. The New York Times even reports that comedians are struggling to find funny Obama material. Apparently he’s too pure. Huh?

It’s easy for leaders like al-Maliki and Karzai to cozy up to Obama when he’s a media-managed starlet, but once he’s been in office for a time and had to make hard decisions, he probably won’t draw a million Germans to hear him speak. Or if he does, they’ll be there to protest his decision to stay in Iraq for another year or his unrelenting support for American farm subsidies that impoverish the third world. As David Aaronovitch, columnist for the Times of London, tellingly observes, eventually we will all hate Obama.